Republicans Infuriated; Rep. King Blasts Rangel
Reporting
Marcia Kramer
NEW YORK (CBS) ― Already under fire for his tax troubles, Manhattan Congressman Charles Rangel really put his foot in his mouth on Friday.
In a CBS 2 HD exclusive interview, Rep. Rangel called Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin "disabled."
The question was simple: Why are the Democrats so afraid of Palin and her popularity?
The answer was astonishing.
"You got to be kind to the disabled," Rangel said.
That's right. The chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee called Palin disabled -- even when CBS 2 HD called him on it.
CBS 2 HD: "You got to be kind to the disabled?"
Rangel: "Yes."
CBS 2 HD: "She's disabled?"
Rangel: "There's no question about it politically. It's a nightmare to think that a person's foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live.
Republicans think Rangel's comments are insulting as well as shocking.
"Charlie Rangel's comments are clearly disgraceful," Rep. Peter King, R-Long Island, said. "This is just another liberal Democrat who can't accept an independent woman running for president."
King, who is co-chair of the McCain-Palin campaign in New York, watched Rangel's comments with CBS 2 HD. He was particularly upset because Palin's 4-month-old son, Trig, is disabled. He has Down's syndrome.
"We should be sensitive to her or any woman who has a child or family member who has any affliction at all," King said. "And so to use the word disabled in the context of a female candidate for vice president who has a child who is disabled really is wrong. Charlie owes her and the entire disabled community and apology."
Advocates for the disabled are also upset.
"It makes me feel as if he's trying to put her down, trying to say she's not good for the presidency or the vice presidency," said Michael Imperiale of Disabled In Action Of Metropolitan N.Y.
"A disabled president ran this country. He was disabled. His name was Roosevelt."
A spokesman for the McCain-Palin campaign also piled on, saying that this kind of rhetoric has no place in politics.
Article Link
Friday, September 19, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Leftist media sire hypocrisy AWOL on Edwards, all over Palin
By Michael Graham
Thursday, September 4, 2008
When the story first broke that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had cheated on his cancer-stricken wife and sired a baby with a bimbo on his campaign payroll, The New York Times [NYT] refused to run it.
But when the news hit that not the president, not the vice president but the daughter of the vice-presidential nominee is pregnant, the Times ran five - count ’em, five - stories about it. In one day.
Edwards dragged his sick wife through the Iowa boonies and paid his girlfriend off in campaign dollars, and the Times decides it’s not worth writing about.
Meanwhile Bristol Palin is too young to even vote for Edwards, and she makes the front page of nearly every major daily that for weeks refused to report on the Edwards Love Child story.
But remember: There is no liberal media bias. Don’t believe me? Just ask Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.
When the daughter of a vice-presidential candidate turns out to be 17, unmarried and pregnant, of course that’s news. But it doesn’t come close to legitimizing the all-out media assault (there is no other word for it) the press has unleashed on the Palins.
So-called “reporters” on CNN and MSNBC have speculated on Gov. Palin’s fitness as a mother. Sally Quinn from The Washington Post says that Palin should “rethink her priorities” and turn down the VP job. US Weekly - owned by the same people who put fawning faux-Jesus photos of Barack Obama on the cover of Rolling Stone - calls the Palin story “Sex, Lies and Scandal.”cw-4
Deeper in the fever swamps, Fox News’ token liberal Alan Colmes has suggested that Palin abused her youngest son Trig by denying him proper prenatal care.
And The Atlantic, once a respected, thoughtful voice of the American left, has actually promoted the lunatic - and utterly disproven - theory that Gov. Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig at all. Trig is really Bristol’s son, and the governor of Alaska took time out of her schedule fighting against hack GOP congressmen and oil company insiders to fake a pregnancy on her daughter’s behalf.
According to Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign, mainstream media organizations are demanding to see medical reports on Gov. Palin’s amniotic fluid and a DNA test on little Trig.
These aren’t the actions of bad journalists. These are the actions of bad people. From the set of MSNBC to the pages of The Boston Globe-Democrat, there are people willing to do anything to elect Barack Obama, up to and including the trashing of a 17-year-old girl.
But remember: Barack Obama is, as one San Francisco columnist put it, the “light bringer” who will heal our partisan divide.
It’s odd to hear liberal journalists who complained about the sexism of the Obama campaign now complaining that Gov. Palin won’t stay home and raise them babies.
It’s confusing to hear die-hard lefties like PBS’s Mark Shields releasing their inner Jerry Falwells to criticize Palin for putting “ambition” over her daughter’s well-being.
And it’s downright bizarre to read in the Boston Herald yesterday that our own U.S. Rep. Barney Frank believes the Palins’ private life is “fair game.” Hey, Barney - when you catch Bristol running a male prostitution ring out of the governor’s mansion basement, then we’ll talk.
Not to mention the Obama campaign sending out a press release attacking (erroneously, as is often the case) Gov. Palin for supporting “Nazi sympathizer” Pat Buchanan in 2000.
Gov. Sarah Palin: Lousy mom, trashy family and a Nazi. And you can read it all in The New York Times [NYT].
But remember: Don’t listen to talk radio. That’s hate speech.
Article Link
Thursday, September 4, 2008
When the story first broke that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had cheated on his cancer-stricken wife and sired a baby with a bimbo on his campaign payroll, The New York Times [NYT] refused to run it.
But when the news hit that not the president, not the vice president but the daughter of the vice-presidential nominee is pregnant, the Times ran five - count ’em, five - stories about it. In one day.
Edwards dragged his sick wife through the Iowa boonies and paid his girlfriend off in campaign dollars, and the Times decides it’s not worth writing about.
Meanwhile Bristol Palin is too young to even vote for Edwards, and she makes the front page of nearly every major daily that for weeks refused to report on the Edwards Love Child story.
But remember: There is no liberal media bias. Don’t believe me? Just ask Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.
When the daughter of a vice-presidential candidate turns out to be 17, unmarried and pregnant, of course that’s news. But it doesn’t come close to legitimizing the all-out media assault (there is no other word for it) the press has unleashed on the Palins.
So-called “reporters” on CNN and MSNBC have speculated on Gov. Palin’s fitness as a mother. Sally Quinn from The Washington Post says that Palin should “rethink her priorities” and turn down the VP job. US Weekly - owned by the same people who put fawning faux-Jesus photos of Barack Obama on the cover of Rolling Stone - calls the Palin story “Sex, Lies and Scandal.”cw-4
Deeper in the fever swamps, Fox News’ token liberal Alan Colmes has suggested that Palin abused her youngest son Trig by denying him proper prenatal care.
And The Atlantic, once a respected, thoughtful voice of the American left, has actually promoted the lunatic - and utterly disproven - theory that Gov. Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig at all. Trig is really Bristol’s son, and the governor of Alaska took time out of her schedule fighting against hack GOP congressmen and oil company insiders to fake a pregnancy on her daughter’s behalf.
According to Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign, mainstream media organizations are demanding to see medical reports on Gov. Palin’s amniotic fluid and a DNA test on little Trig.
These aren’t the actions of bad journalists. These are the actions of bad people. From the set of MSNBC to the pages of The Boston Globe-Democrat, there are people willing to do anything to elect Barack Obama, up to and including the trashing of a 17-year-old girl.
But remember: Barack Obama is, as one San Francisco columnist put it, the “light bringer” who will heal our partisan divide.
It’s odd to hear liberal journalists who complained about the sexism of the Obama campaign now complaining that Gov. Palin won’t stay home and raise them babies.
It’s confusing to hear die-hard lefties like PBS’s Mark Shields releasing their inner Jerry Falwells to criticize Palin for putting “ambition” over her daughter’s well-being.
And it’s downright bizarre to read in the Boston Herald yesterday that our own U.S. Rep. Barney Frank believes the Palins’ private life is “fair game.” Hey, Barney - when you catch Bristol running a male prostitution ring out of the governor’s mansion basement, then we’ll talk.
Not to mention the Obama campaign sending out a press release attacking (erroneously, as is often the case) Gov. Palin for supporting “Nazi sympathizer” Pat Buchanan in 2000.
Gov. Sarah Palin: Lousy mom, trashy family and a Nazi. And you can read it all in The New York Times [NYT].
But remember: Don’t listen to talk radio. That’s hate speech.
Article Link
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Democrat Party is the anti-thesis of everything they claim to champion The Party Of Anti-Achievement
By Bob Parks Wednesday, September 3, 2008
If Sarah Palin has learned anything from her less-than-a-week in the international spotlight, she’s learned what it’s like to be black.
Think about it.
She’s the first woman to be the vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party. One would think this would be the 18 millionth and one crack in the glass ceiling. Sarah Palin has a reasonable chance of becoming President of the United States within her first term in office. Her selection should have been celebrated from sea to shining sea.
But the coordinated attack on Palin and her family proves once again that the Democrat Party is the anti-thesis of everything they claim to champion. They ARE anti-woman and anti-minority, that is unless that celebrated woman and minority are Democrats.
When Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice became the first two black Secretaries of State, the highest-ever political appointments of blacks in American history, it was not celebrated. Instead the “Party of Civil Rights” (another false myth) launched condoned racist attacks on the ”showcase appointments”, not their documented qualifications.
The mainstream media, academia, and liberal blogs had a field day (as they always have) resurrecting every racial taboo imaginable, and did so with impunity. They justified it with Powell and Rice’s not being “the right kind of black”. Like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Janice Rogers Brown, and Ken Blackwell, when it came to destroying the reputation of people outside the group Democrats “own”, nothing was off the table.
Now, enter Sarah Palin. She’s accomplished everything the liberal feminists said a woman could. She’s raised a family while moving up the old boy’s ladder. She became the chief executive in her state, yet once those achievements were recognized, it became necessary for the Democrat Party to tear this woman down precisely because they couldn’t take credit for that milestone.
And it’s not like they didn’t have a chance. Like her or not, Hillary Clinton could’ve been that milestone during a year of milestones.
Barack Obama became the first black to be receive his party’s nomination for president. Hillary Clinton received more of the popular vote along the way. Granted, Hillary does come with a lot of old baggage, but it’s nothing the media hasn’t dealt with before, and once the ultimate lines were drawn, she would have been embraced.
But the party of gender equality went the other way. They played party insider politics with the delegates, making rules and breaking them and making them again, just to pressure those delegates into a fixed result on the convention floor that brought that glass ceiling crashing down on the woman, again.
Even while being led by a black presidential nominee, the Democrat Party fell back on the old white guy (Joe Biden) for his running mate. They had the chance to make history. They had the chance to issue a double whammy on the history books for all time. A black man and woman on a presidential ticket, and they balked when it came time to seal the deal. So how do they make up with the 18 million who voted for and still support that woman?
The set out on a search-and-destroy mission against the other woman in the mix.
EVERY rule Democrats made and held us all to have been broken. Respect and sensitivity to minorities, gone. Now, they’re going all out on the woman.
We, the simpleton citizens in the mix, were instructed by every liberal establishment to respect women. We were told that women could do anything a man could do, and would be wholeheartedly encouraged to do so. We were also told what we couldn’t do.
We were told it was bad to assume that a woman couldn’t raise a family and be public servants at the same time. We were told that family members were not to be subject to adult, political attacks. While the privacy of Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton are the most recent examples, we were instructed to ease up off the kids even after Chelsea recently became a bonafide political agent for her mother’s presidential campaign. I guess that was a makeup for the Bush twins who were relentlessly savaged for eight years.
The upside to this is that many Democrat women are on to this egregious double standard. While Sarah Palin is a Republican, many liberal women do consider the rules still in effect. The sexist attacks on Palin, along with the attacks on her pregnant teen daughter are just the latest tact used by the Democrat establishment, and it is being noticed. Democrat women aren’t going to change their party affiliation because of party actions, but show me a woman that doesn’t keep insults parked away in her mind for future reference.
The Democrats have talked a good game for decades, but as barriers and ceilings are broken, they will only recognize the ones they can take ownership of. If it means the high-tech lynching of blacks or the political rape of women, so be it. Democrats traditionally own those of use to them, and hunt down those who pose a threat.
So I don’t want to hear any more shock and awe from liberal women who wonder how this could be happening. It was okay when it was happening to Condoleeza Rice, so you’d better be ready for what Democrats have in store for Sarah Palin. They blew you off despite the Hillary vote, and they’ll blow you off while they attack a 17-year-old girl and a Down Syndrome baby. You were repeatedly told Republicans were the party of intolerance and hate.
If that’s the case, the Democrat Party is that of anti-achievement. The road they are taking is a rocky one, and they never let women drive.
Click here to send this page to a friend!
Website: Black & Right
Bob Parks is a of the National Advisory Council of Project 21, Senior Writer for the New Media Journal, VP of Marketing and Media Relations for the New Media Alliance. Bob’s websites are Black & Right and youtube.com/BlackAndRight
Bob can be reached at: blackandright@gmail.com
Article Link
If Sarah Palin has learned anything from her less-than-a-week in the international spotlight, she’s learned what it’s like to be black.
Think about it.
She’s the first woman to be the vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party. One would think this would be the 18 millionth and one crack in the glass ceiling. Sarah Palin has a reasonable chance of becoming President of the United States within her first term in office. Her selection should have been celebrated from sea to shining sea.
But the coordinated attack on Palin and her family proves once again that the Democrat Party is the anti-thesis of everything they claim to champion. They ARE anti-woman and anti-minority, that is unless that celebrated woman and minority are Democrats.
When Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice became the first two black Secretaries of State, the highest-ever political appointments of blacks in American history, it was not celebrated. Instead the “Party of Civil Rights” (another false myth) launched condoned racist attacks on the ”showcase appointments”, not their documented qualifications.
The mainstream media, academia, and liberal blogs had a field day (as they always have) resurrecting every racial taboo imaginable, and did so with impunity. They justified it with Powell and Rice’s not being “the right kind of black”. Like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Janice Rogers Brown, and Ken Blackwell, when it came to destroying the reputation of people outside the group Democrats “own”, nothing was off the table.
Now, enter Sarah Palin. She’s accomplished everything the liberal feminists said a woman could. She’s raised a family while moving up the old boy’s ladder. She became the chief executive in her state, yet once those achievements were recognized, it became necessary for the Democrat Party to tear this woman down precisely because they couldn’t take credit for that milestone.
And it’s not like they didn’t have a chance. Like her or not, Hillary Clinton could’ve been that milestone during a year of milestones.
Barack Obama became the first black to be receive his party’s nomination for president. Hillary Clinton received more of the popular vote along the way. Granted, Hillary does come with a lot of old baggage, but it’s nothing the media hasn’t dealt with before, and once the ultimate lines were drawn, she would have been embraced.
But the party of gender equality went the other way. They played party insider politics with the delegates, making rules and breaking them and making them again, just to pressure those delegates into a fixed result on the convention floor that brought that glass ceiling crashing down on the woman, again.
Even while being led by a black presidential nominee, the Democrat Party fell back on the old white guy (Joe Biden) for his running mate. They had the chance to make history. They had the chance to issue a double whammy on the history books for all time. A black man and woman on a presidential ticket, and they balked when it came time to seal the deal. So how do they make up with the 18 million who voted for and still support that woman?
The set out on a search-and-destroy mission against the other woman in the mix.
EVERY rule Democrats made and held us all to have been broken. Respect and sensitivity to minorities, gone. Now, they’re going all out on the woman.
We, the simpleton citizens in the mix, were instructed by every liberal establishment to respect women. We were told that women could do anything a man could do, and would be wholeheartedly encouraged to do so. We were also told what we couldn’t do.
We were told it was bad to assume that a woman couldn’t raise a family and be public servants at the same time. We were told that family members were not to be subject to adult, political attacks. While the privacy of Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton are the most recent examples, we were instructed to ease up off the kids even after Chelsea recently became a bonafide political agent for her mother’s presidential campaign. I guess that was a makeup for the Bush twins who were relentlessly savaged for eight years.
The upside to this is that many Democrat women are on to this egregious double standard. While Sarah Palin is a Republican, many liberal women do consider the rules still in effect. The sexist attacks on Palin, along with the attacks on her pregnant teen daughter are just the latest tact used by the Democrat establishment, and it is being noticed. Democrat women aren’t going to change their party affiliation because of party actions, but show me a woman that doesn’t keep insults parked away in her mind for future reference.
The Democrats have talked a good game for decades, but as barriers and ceilings are broken, they will only recognize the ones they can take ownership of. If it means the high-tech lynching of blacks or the political rape of women, so be it. Democrats traditionally own those of use to them, and hunt down those who pose a threat.
So I don’t want to hear any more shock and awe from liberal women who wonder how this could be happening. It was okay when it was happening to Condoleeza Rice, so you’d better be ready for what Democrats have in store for Sarah Palin. They blew you off despite the Hillary vote, and they’ll blow you off while they attack a 17-year-old girl and a Down Syndrome baby. You were repeatedly told Republicans were the party of intolerance and hate.
If that’s the case, the Democrat Party is that of anti-achievement. The road they are taking is a rocky one, and they never let women drive.
Click here to send this page to a friend!
Website: Black & Right
Bob Parks is a of the National Advisory Council of Project 21, Senior Writer for the New Media Journal, VP of Marketing and Media Relations for the New Media Alliance. Bob’s websites are Black & Right and youtube.com/BlackAndRight
Bob can be reached at: blackandright@gmail.com
Article Link
Monday, September 1, 2008
Fowler Fouls: Hurricane is God's Favor to Democrats
Posted by: absentee
Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 01:17PM
UPDATE (see below for SC GOP Statement)
On a plane from Denver to Charlotte following the Democrats' convention, I found myself seated behind former National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler and Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina. Their conversation was interesting to say the least.
For example, they made fun of Sarah Palin for several minutes, Fowler calling her "Dan Quayle" on steroids and Spratt creatively describing her as "just terrible." They both agreed that, "Other than the simple fact that she's a female," she has nothing to offer.
Then there was this gem of a moment from Fowler:
Watch the video
So you see, it's funny. That New Orleans will get a hurricane. That's funny because it is due to hit when President Bush is scheduled to speak. Isn't that cool? Fowler isn't the only one who thinks so, just ask Michael Moore.
We all know Democrats used and use Katrina as a political football as callously as possible. Here's a candid moment showing some can hardly wait for another one.
All Class.
BREAKING: Statement from SCGOP Chairman Katon Dawson
"The outrageous behavior of two of the Obama campaign's highest profile supporters in the south is despicable, a cynical politization of life and death. I call on Barack Obama to immediately denounce Fowler and Spratt and demand sincere apologies from these members of the Democratic leadership."
Article Link
Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 01:17PM
UPDATE (see below for SC GOP Statement)
On a plane from Denver to Charlotte following the Democrats' convention, I found myself seated behind former National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler and Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina. Their conversation was interesting to say the least.
For example, they made fun of Sarah Palin for several minutes, Fowler calling her "Dan Quayle" on steroids and Spratt creatively describing her as "just terrible." They both agreed that, "Other than the simple fact that she's a female," she has nothing to offer.
Then there was this gem of a moment from Fowler:
Watch the video
So you see, it's funny. That New Orleans will get a hurricane. That's funny because it is due to hit when President Bush is scheduled to speak. Isn't that cool? Fowler isn't the only one who thinks so, just ask Michael Moore.
We all know Democrats used and use Katrina as a political football as callously as possible. Here's a candid moment showing some can hardly wait for another one.
All Class.
BREAKING: Statement from SCGOP Chairman Katon Dawson
"The outrageous behavior of two of the Obama campaign's highest profile supporters in the south is despicable, a cynical politization of life and death. I call on Barack Obama to immediately denounce Fowler and Spratt and demand sincere apologies from these members of the Democratic leadership."
Article Link
Saturday, August 23, 2008
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.
WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.
In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.
Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.
"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.
Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."
He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.
"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.
"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.
He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.
"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.
The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.
In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.
"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.
The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.
"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.
The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."
The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.
Article Link
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.
WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.
In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.
Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.
"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.
Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."
He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.
"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.
"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.
He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.
"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.
The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.
In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.
"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.
The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.
"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.
The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."
The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.
Article Link
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Congress's unsound fury over Big Oil
Movie theaters capture more windfall profit than oil companies.
By Justin Danhof
from the August 7, 2008 edition
Washington - With this summer's high gas prices, Americans are trading in their traditional vacations for "staycations" – vacations much closer to home.
But compared with other things Americans might do, driving is still a bargain.
Consider, for example, the costs of going to a movie:
To take a family of four to a movie at an AMC Theatre, it will cost anywhere from $55.75 to $71.50, depending on whether the family shares movie snacks or not, and this does not even include gasoline.
For that same $71.50, the family could purchase enough gas for their car (of decent gas mileage) to drive from Disneyland to Las Vegas and back again. And for the price of tickets and extra-large refreshments, , they could drive from Disneyland to the Grand Canyon and back again.
Where are the calls for federal investigation into price gouging at concession stands?
For years, populist politicians have dragged oil industry executives to Capitol Hill and accused them of price manipulation. Every time gas prices increase, liberal lawmakers direct the Federal Trade Commission to investigate oil industry price gouging. To their chagrin, the FTC has never found oil industry price manipulation.
What evidence does congress use to back their price gouging claims? Try none.
In 2005, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) of Washington responded to a question on whether she believed oil companies were price gouging, "[a]bsolutely." she said. "I just don't have the document to prove it."
And this past May, in a speech on the House floor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) of Florida targeted oil company executives when she said, "I can't say that there's evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are."
Shouldn't we demand more from our politicians than unfounded accusations?
These congressional hearings are often followed by attempts to impose so-called windfall profits taxes on oil companies. The process is reminiscent of the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, in which the accused are subjected to a painful – possibly fatal procedure – with the expectation that the truly innocent will be saved.
So far, the oil companies have survived. The most recent attempt to impose such a tax on "unreasonable" profits failed in June.
And just what do congressional advocates of a windfall profits tax consider unreasonable?
In the first quarter of 2008, Big Oil had a profit margin of 7.4 percent. Over that same period, the pharmaceutical and medicine industry earned a 25.9 percent profit, the chemical industry earned 15.7 percent and the electronic equipment industry earned 12.1 percent.
What about those movie theater refreshments? Four large popcorns and four large sodas cost $31.50. The total raw ingredient cost is approximately $7.56. That equals a 76 percent gross margin. Where is the political outrage over that figure?
Still believe it is the oil companies gouging us? Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to.
Ms. Pelosi has called oil company profits "obscene," and recently supported yet another measure to investigate alleged oil industry price gouging.
Let's take a look at where each dollar spent at the pump goes. In the first quarter of 2008, the majority – 70 cents – was spent to purchase crude oil, 17 cents was spent on refining and retailing, and 13 cents on paying taxes.
American oil companies cannot change the largest factor influencing gasoline prices – the cost of crude oil.
In The New York Times, columnist Edmund L. Andrews asked satirically last year "if the oil industry is so powerful, why did it let gasoline prices fall through the floor throughout the 1980s and part of the 1990s? For that matter why did it let gasoline prices fall sharply after they spiked in 2005 and 2006?"
Pelosi never decried this "obscene" lack of profits and shareholder abuse. Instead, she seeks to punish an industry that makes a modest profit margin on a high demand good.
• Justin Danhof is a research associate with the National Center for Public Policy Research, a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation based in Washington.
Article Link
By Justin Danhof
from the August 7, 2008 edition
Washington - With this summer's high gas prices, Americans are trading in their traditional vacations for "staycations" – vacations much closer to home.
But compared with other things Americans might do, driving is still a bargain.
Consider, for example, the costs of going to a movie:
To take a family of four to a movie at an AMC Theatre, it will cost anywhere from $55.75 to $71.50, depending on whether the family shares movie snacks or not, and this does not even include gasoline.
For that same $71.50, the family could purchase enough gas for their car (of decent gas mileage) to drive from Disneyland to Las Vegas and back again. And for the price of tickets and extra-large refreshments, , they could drive from Disneyland to the Grand Canyon and back again.
Where are the calls for federal investigation into price gouging at concession stands?
For years, populist politicians have dragged oil industry executives to Capitol Hill and accused them of price manipulation. Every time gas prices increase, liberal lawmakers direct the Federal Trade Commission to investigate oil industry price gouging. To their chagrin, the FTC has never found oil industry price manipulation.
What evidence does congress use to back their price gouging claims? Try none.
In 2005, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) of Washington responded to a question on whether she believed oil companies were price gouging, "[a]bsolutely." she said. "I just don't have the document to prove it."
And this past May, in a speech on the House floor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) of Florida targeted oil company executives when she said, "I can't say that there's evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are."
Shouldn't we demand more from our politicians than unfounded accusations?
These congressional hearings are often followed by attempts to impose so-called windfall profits taxes on oil companies. The process is reminiscent of the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, in which the accused are subjected to a painful – possibly fatal procedure – with the expectation that the truly innocent will be saved.
So far, the oil companies have survived. The most recent attempt to impose such a tax on "unreasonable" profits failed in June.
And just what do congressional advocates of a windfall profits tax consider unreasonable?
In the first quarter of 2008, Big Oil had a profit margin of 7.4 percent. Over that same period, the pharmaceutical and medicine industry earned a 25.9 percent profit, the chemical industry earned 15.7 percent and the electronic equipment industry earned 12.1 percent.
What about those movie theater refreshments? Four large popcorns and four large sodas cost $31.50. The total raw ingredient cost is approximately $7.56. That equals a 76 percent gross margin. Where is the political outrage over that figure?
Still believe it is the oil companies gouging us? Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to.
Ms. Pelosi has called oil company profits "obscene," and recently supported yet another measure to investigate alleged oil industry price gouging.
Let's take a look at where each dollar spent at the pump goes. In the first quarter of 2008, the majority – 70 cents – was spent to purchase crude oil, 17 cents was spent on refining and retailing, and 13 cents on paying taxes.
American oil companies cannot change the largest factor influencing gasoline prices – the cost of crude oil.
In The New York Times, columnist Edmund L. Andrews asked satirically last year "if the oil industry is so powerful, why did it let gasoline prices fall through the floor throughout the 1980s and part of the 1990s? For that matter why did it let gasoline prices fall sharply after they spiked in 2005 and 2006?"
Pelosi never decried this "obscene" lack of profits and shareholder abuse. Instead, she seeks to punish an industry that makes a modest profit margin on a high demand good.
• Justin Danhof is a research associate with the National Center for Public Policy Research, a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation based in Washington.
Article Link
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.
Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.
Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."
And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.
The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.
A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.
As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:
"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."
The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.
In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.
As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."
It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.
One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.
A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.
The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).
Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site.
Article Link
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.
Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.
Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."
And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.
The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.
A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.
As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:
"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."
The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.
In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.
As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."
It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.
One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.
A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.
The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).
Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site.
Article Link
Monday, August 4, 2008
Congress takes five-week vacation without passing energy bill
By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:08/01/2008 12:16:38 AM MDT
Posted: 5:24 PM- WASHINGTON -- Congress sets off on summer vacation Friday with Republicans and Democrats fired up over the lack of action on gas prices and blaming each other for not lessening the pain at the pump.
The House and Senate are taking a five-week-long vacation starting Friday afternoon, but before they cast off, members took turns sniping at the opposing party for their inability to pass any legislation affecting oil prices.
Utah's Republican senators, Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, argued several times this week - on the Senate floor, at news conferences, in statements - that Congress needed to move on measures that would open up off-shore drilling, drop a moratorium on oil shale leases and push for renewable energy sources.
Hatch said those opposed to those efforts are really just hurting the poorest Americans.
"When it comes to the War on the Poor, you're either with the poor or against them," Hatch said at a news conference with advocates of opening up coastal waters and an Arctic refuge for drilling, allowing oil shale production and building new refineries.
Democrats argued that the Republican plans wouldn't decrease the price of oil and were only attempts to placate oil companies. Several pointed out Republicans had fought against getting rid of tax breaks for Big Oil at a time when consumers were paying $4 or more a gallon and Exxon Mobile recorded the highest profit this quarter of any U.S. company in history.
The Republicans arguments weren't really about oil production, said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. "This is about Republicans protecting record oil company profits."
In back-and-forth bickering on the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to force Democrats to vote on a measure opening up coastal waters for drilling when gas reached $4.50, $5 or even $7.50 a gallon.
"If $5-gallon gasoline isn't an emergency, I have to ask what is an emergency?" McConnell said.
"It's a phantom solution," countered Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo, noting that such drilling would not affect gas prices in the short term.
Bennett sought to find a mix of more drilling and incentives for renewable resources, saying the nation needs to wean itself off oil but requires more oil sources in the meantime.
"If we can increase our ability to produce energy, we can control the building of the bridge to the long-term future when we are no longer as dependent on fossil fuels as we are now," Bennett said. "If we want to get to renewables, we have to build a bridge to get there."
Nonetheless, as Congress jets out of a hot, humid Washington, members were unable to strike a compromise on energy legislation. The legislative body returns to session after the Republican National Convention in September for a scheduled two weeks before again taking leave again to campaign.
It's unclear yet whether Congress will return to work after that break.
tburr@sltrib.com
Article Link
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:08/01/2008 12:16:38 AM MDT
Posted: 5:24 PM- WASHINGTON -- Congress sets off on summer vacation Friday with Republicans and Democrats fired up over the lack of action on gas prices and blaming each other for not lessening the pain at the pump.
The House and Senate are taking a five-week-long vacation starting Friday afternoon, but before they cast off, members took turns sniping at the opposing party for their inability to pass any legislation affecting oil prices.
Utah's Republican senators, Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, argued several times this week - on the Senate floor, at news conferences, in statements - that Congress needed to move on measures that would open up off-shore drilling, drop a moratorium on oil shale leases and push for renewable energy sources.
Hatch said those opposed to those efforts are really just hurting the poorest Americans.
"When it comes to the War on the Poor, you're either with the poor or against them," Hatch said at a news conference with advocates of opening up coastal waters and an Arctic refuge for drilling, allowing oil shale production and building new refineries.
Democrats argued that the Republican plans wouldn't decrease the price of oil and were only attempts to placate oil companies. Several pointed out Republicans had fought against getting rid of tax breaks for Big Oil at a time when consumers were paying $4 or more a gallon and Exxon Mobile recorded the highest profit this quarter of any U.S. company in history.
The Republicans arguments weren't really about oil production, said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. "This is about Republicans protecting record oil company profits."
In back-and-forth bickering on the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to force Democrats to vote on a measure opening up coastal waters for drilling when gas reached $4.50, $5 or even $7.50 a gallon.
"If $5-gallon gasoline isn't an emergency, I have to ask what is an emergency?" McConnell said.
"It's a phantom solution," countered Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo, noting that such drilling would not affect gas prices in the short term.
Bennett sought to find a mix of more drilling and incentives for renewable resources, saying the nation needs to wean itself off oil but requires more oil sources in the meantime.
"If we can increase our ability to produce energy, we can control the building of the bridge to the long-term future when we are no longer as dependent on fossil fuels as we are now," Bennett said. "If we want to get to renewables, we have to build a bridge to get there."
Nonetheless, as Congress jets out of a hot, humid Washington, members were unable to strike a compromise on energy legislation. The legislative body returns to session after the Republican National Convention in September for a scheduled two weeks before again taking leave again to campaign.
It's unclear yet whether Congress will return to work after that break.
tburr@sltrib.com
Article Link
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Obama promises to 'remake the world'
Obama promises to 'remake the world'
By MIKE ALLEN | 7/24/08 2:36 PM
Addressing tens of thousands of elated Europeans massed in Berlin at twilight, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama promised Thursday that he would work to unite Christians, Muslims and Jews in a safer, more united world.
His 27-minute speech at the gold-topped Victory Column was interrupted by applause at least 30 times, with occasional audience chants of “O-ba-MA!”
Billed as a speech about Transatlantic relations, it turned out to be a manifesto for the planet, with an appeal to “the burdens of global citizenship.”
Reaching out to skeptics back home, he heralded “the dream of freedom” and declared firmly: “I love America.”
“People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time,” he declared, offering himself “not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen, a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”
Obama’s speech, the centerpiece of his presidential-style sweep of the Middle East and Europe, set a global agenda as expansive and audacious as any contemplated by a candidate for United States president.
“In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help us make it right, has become all too common,” he said. “Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe.
“No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together,” Obama continued. “A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more, not less.”
Invoking the fall of the Berlin Wall after the historic call by President Ronald Reagan at the nearby Brandenburg Gate, Obama declared that the greatest danger now “is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.”
“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand,” he said. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”
In perhaps the most striking passage, Obama asserted: “I know my country has not perfected itself.”
“But I also know how much I love America,” he said. “We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye towards the future, with resolve in our heart, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.”
Obama’s sweeping vision also includes:
— "This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons."
— "This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East."
— "America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”
— “My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.”
— “The world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.”
Article Link
By MIKE ALLEN | 7/24/08 2:36 PM
Addressing tens of thousands of elated Europeans massed in Berlin at twilight, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama promised Thursday that he would work to unite Christians, Muslims and Jews in a safer, more united world.
His 27-minute speech at the gold-topped Victory Column was interrupted by applause at least 30 times, with occasional audience chants of “O-ba-MA!”
Billed as a speech about Transatlantic relations, it turned out to be a manifesto for the planet, with an appeal to “the burdens of global citizenship.”
Reaching out to skeptics back home, he heralded “the dream of freedom” and declared firmly: “I love America.”
“People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time,” he declared, offering himself “not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen, a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”
Obama’s speech, the centerpiece of his presidential-style sweep of the Middle East and Europe, set a global agenda as expansive and audacious as any contemplated by a candidate for United States president.
“In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help us make it right, has become all too common,” he said. “Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe.
“No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together,” Obama continued. “A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more, not less.”
Invoking the fall of the Berlin Wall after the historic call by President Ronald Reagan at the nearby Brandenburg Gate, Obama declared that the greatest danger now “is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.”
“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand,” he said. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”
In perhaps the most striking passage, Obama asserted: “I know my country has not perfected itself.”
“But I also know how much I love America,” he said. “We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye towards the future, with resolve in our heart, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.”
Obama’s sweeping vision also includes:
— "This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons."
— "This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East."
— "America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”
— “My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.”
— “The world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.”
Article Link
Arrogant Obama's Short-Lived Presidential Seal
June 24, 2008 09:38 AM ET | Bonnie Erbe | Permanent Link
When a friend last week E-mailed a picture of Sen. Barack Obama standing in front of a new campaign seal, I thought the emblem was a put-up job by the right wing. I decided not to blog about it then because I was on vacation and could not verify the accuracy of the picture, seen on this link to Ad Age's website.
Turns out, it was no put-up job. It was in fact created by the Obama campaign. Shortly after delivering it to the American public, the campaign unceremoniously slaughtered the poor seal. Whoever had the combination of gall and stupidity to (A) create and (B) use that seal in public ought to be summarily dismissed.
The seal is emblematic of all that is wrong with the Obama campaign: presumptuousness, self-aggrandizement in lieu of substance, unadulterated hunger for power and social climbing. The seal makes him look as if he has appointed himself president before being elected to the post. This is such a mark of bad judgment it makes one think: God help the American public if voters give him the White House job.
Article Link
When a friend last week E-mailed a picture of Sen. Barack Obama standing in front of a new campaign seal, I thought the emblem was a put-up job by the right wing. I decided not to blog about it then because I was on vacation and could not verify the accuracy of the picture, seen on this link to Ad Age's website.
Turns out, it was no put-up job. It was in fact created by the Obama campaign. Shortly after delivering it to the American public, the campaign unceremoniously slaughtered the poor seal. Whoever had the combination of gall and stupidity to (A) create and (B) use that seal in public ought to be summarily dismissed.
The seal is emblematic of all that is wrong with the Obama campaign: presumptuousness, self-aggrandizement in lieu of substance, unadulterated hunger for power and social climbing. The seal makes him look as if he has appointed himself president before being elected to the post. This is such a mark of bad judgment it makes one think: God help the American public if voters give him the White House job.
Article Link
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Wind power: A reality check
Plans are afoot to prod the nation into using much more renewable energy. Can it be done, and what's the cost?
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: July 22, 2008: 3:52 PM ED
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- High-profile personalities have been telling the nation to ditch that dirty fossil fuel and turn to renewable energy.
T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire oilman, has been hitting the airwaves, pitching a plan to use wind to replace all the natural gas that's used to produce electricity, then using that saved natural gas to fuel cars.
In addition to weaning the nation from foreign oil, Pickens' plan is not entirely altruistic. He's investing hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant wind farm in the Texas panhandle, and his hedge fund, BP Capital, is said to own stakes in several companies that equip cars to run on natural gas. If his energy efforts pan out, he could get even richer in the process.
Then there's Al Gore. The former U.S. vice president and Nobel Prize winner said last week that electricity generation should be completely fossil-fuel free in 10 years.
The question is, are these plans realistic or just dreams?
"It's not out of the realm of technical feasibility," said Chris Namovicz, a renewable energy analyst at the government's Energy Information Agency. "But they come with pretty significant price tags."
The order is indeed tall.
The nation currently relies on coal - the dirtiest of all fossil fuels - for 50% of its electricity production. Natural gas makes up about 21%, and nuclear power comprises about 20%. Hydro and oil each contribute a bit as well, while traditional renewables - wind, solar, biomass and geothermal - ring in at only 3% combined, according to the EIA.
Pickens has a loosely detailed plan to replace the natural-gas-produced electricity with wind energy. He says it could be done in 10 years.
"That is extremely aggressive," said Dave Hamilton, director for global warming and energy projects at the Sierra Club. "But it's in the right direction. It's a good thing we have an oilman saying we can't drill our way out of this problem."
Unpredictable wind
One of the big challenges with using wind to replace natural gas is that, unlike the steady flame from natural gas, the wind doesn't blow all the time.
To make sure enough power is available when the wind isn't blowing, backup generators would be needed, said Paul Fremont, an electric-utility analyst at the investment bank Jefferies & Co.
That could mean maintaining those natural gas plants in case of emergency, or implementing even more novel ideas like systems in Europe that use excess wind electricity to pump water uphill when the wind is blowing, then release it through hydro dams when the wind stops.
Either way, any type of backup system comes with a price.
"It's very costly, and very inefficient for society as a whole," said Fremont. "Policy makers will have to decide if the benefits are worth it."
The utility industry also has reservations about using wind on a large scale, again pointing to the fact that it doesn't blow all the time.
The Sierra Club's Becker downplayed the problem. While a challenge now, he said technological advances will allow several wind farms from varying regions of the country to be tied together in the same electricity grid; when some are idle, others could make up the difference.
"The more we focus on how to get this done, the quicker we'll solve our problems," he said.
Government regulations
Another impediment to large-scale wind generation is a lack of turbines and infrastructure, said Hamilton. Companies like General Electric (GE, Fortune 500), India's Suzlon and Spain's Gamesa, which make wind turbines, aren't building enough of those turbines to meet demand because government tax credits offered to energy producers expire every two years. These tax credits are a big incentive for people to invest in wind energy - Pickens would net $60 million a year, according to Jefferies' Fremont, and that is likely why he's currently pitching his plan to lawmakers.
Companies fear that, if the tax credits aren't renewed, they will be stuck with unwanted wind turbines if energy producers scale back their demand for wind power.
Also impeding the development of wind power is the fact that the government is unclear about how or whether it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If regulations were enacted, investments in wind energy would likely increase as utilities seek cleaner sources of power.
Wind farms also could benefit when companies or people buy carbon offsets - essentially payments to producers of clean energy and others who take steps in reducing greenhouse gasses.
Despite these challenges, wind power's ability to produce 21% of the nation's electricity needs isn't out of the question. While wind currently only makes up 0.8% of the country's total electricity production, and would need to grow well over 20 times that to replace gas, it's worth noting that wind capacity has increased twelvefold since 1990, according to the EIA.
The second part of Pickens' plan - using natural gas to power vehicles - is perhaps easier.
While automakers are betting on electric cars as the vehicle of the future, those electric cars will still need backup engines to recharge the battery on long trips, at least for the foreseeable future.
Those backup engines could run on natural gas, said Julius Pretterebner, a vehicles and alternative-fuels expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
Pretterebner also pointed to a host of other reasons why natural gas in cars is a good idea: It's about half as expensive as gasoline and 30% cleaner; the infrastructure to get it to service stations already exists; it's relatively cheap to convert existing cars ($500 to $2,000 per car, he said); and natural gas can be carbon neutral, if it's made from plants, a process he said requires no new technology.
"It's maybe the best alternative fuel we have, and the quickest way to get off foreign imports," he said.
As for Gore's call, there aren't any specific measures to analyze. But if Pickens' timetable is aggressive, Gore's is like Pickens' gone wild.
"It's completely impractical to imagine that we could totally wean ourselves off fossil fuels," said Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry's trade association.
Impractical, maybe. But using more renewables is certainly worth looking into. The EIA estimates that by 2015, wind energy will cost 7 cents per kilowatt-hour to produce, just a half-cent more than coal or natural gas.
The EIA says if strict greenhouse gas restrictions become law, renewables might go from 3% percent of the nation's electricity mix to around 25%. Coal, meanwhile, would likely go from more than half to less than a quarter. The EIA said that under the worst-case scenario in bringing about this shift, electricity prices may double.
Given the dangers global warming may pose - U.N. scientists predict severe droughts and floods unless greenhouse gasses are drastically reduced - more-expensive electricity may be a cost Americans are willing to bear.
Article Link
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: July 22, 2008: 3:52 PM ED
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- High-profile personalities have been telling the nation to ditch that dirty fossil fuel and turn to renewable energy.
T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire oilman, has been hitting the airwaves, pitching a plan to use wind to replace all the natural gas that's used to produce electricity, then using that saved natural gas to fuel cars.
In addition to weaning the nation from foreign oil, Pickens' plan is not entirely altruistic. He's investing hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant wind farm in the Texas panhandle, and his hedge fund, BP Capital, is said to own stakes in several companies that equip cars to run on natural gas. If his energy efforts pan out, he could get even richer in the process.
Then there's Al Gore. The former U.S. vice president and Nobel Prize winner said last week that electricity generation should be completely fossil-fuel free in 10 years.
The question is, are these plans realistic or just dreams?
"It's not out of the realm of technical feasibility," said Chris Namovicz, a renewable energy analyst at the government's Energy Information Agency. "But they come with pretty significant price tags."
The order is indeed tall.
The nation currently relies on coal - the dirtiest of all fossil fuels - for 50% of its electricity production. Natural gas makes up about 21%, and nuclear power comprises about 20%. Hydro and oil each contribute a bit as well, while traditional renewables - wind, solar, biomass and geothermal - ring in at only 3% combined, according to the EIA.
Pickens has a loosely detailed plan to replace the natural-gas-produced electricity with wind energy. He says it could be done in 10 years.
"That is extremely aggressive," said Dave Hamilton, director for global warming and energy projects at the Sierra Club. "But it's in the right direction. It's a good thing we have an oilman saying we can't drill our way out of this problem."
Unpredictable wind
One of the big challenges with using wind to replace natural gas is that, unlike the steady flame from natural gas, the wind doesn't blow all the time.
To make sure enough power is available when the wind isn't blowing, backup generators would be needed, said Paul Fremont, an electric-utility analyst at the investment bank Jefferies & Co.
That could mean maintaining those natural gas plants in case of emergency, or implementing even more novel ideas like systems in Europe that use excess wind electricity to pump water uphill when the wind is blowing, then release it through hydro dams when the wind stops.
Either way, any type of backup system comes with a price.
"It's very costly, and very inefficient for society as a whole," said Fremont. "Policy makers will have to decide if the benefits are worth it."
The utility industry also has reservations about using wind on a large scale, again pointing to the fact that it doesn't blow all the time.
The Sierra Club's Becker downplayed the problem. While a challenge now, he said technological advances will allow several wind farms from varying regions of the country to be tied together in the same electricity grid; when some are idle, others could make up the difference.
"The more we focus on how to get this done, the quicker we'll solve our problems," he said.
Government regulations
Another impediment to large-scale wind generation is a lack of turbines and infrastructure, said Hamilton. Companies like General Electric (GE, Fortune 500), India's Suzlon and Spain's Gamesa, which make wind turbines, aren't building enough of those turbines to meet demand because government tax credits offered to energy producers expire every two years. These tax credits are a big incentive for people to invest in wind energy - Pickens would net $60 million a year, according to Jefferies' Fremont, and that is likely why he's currently pitching his plan to lawmakers.
Companies fear that, if the tax credits aren't renewed, they will be stuck with unwanted wind turbines if energy producers scale back their demand for wind power.
Also impeding the development of wind power is the fact that the government is unclear about how or whether it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If regulations were enacted, investments in wind energy would likely increase as utilities seek cleaner sources of power.
Wind farms also could benefit when companies or people buy carbon offsets - essentially payments to producers of clean energy and others who take steps in reducing greenhouse gasses.
Despite these challenges, wind power's ability to produce 21% of the nation's electricity needs isn't out of the question. While wind currently only makes up 0.8% of the country's total electricity production, and would need to grow well over 20 times that to replace gas, it's worth noting that wind capacity has increased twelvefold since 1990, according to the EIA.
The second part of Pickens' plan - using natural gas to power vehicles - is perhaps easier.
While automakers are betting on electric cars as the vehicle of the future, those electric cars will still need backup engines to recharge the battery on long trips, at least for the foreseeable future.
Those backup engines could run on natural gas, said Julius Pretterebner, a vehicles and alternative-fuels expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
Pretterebner also pointed to a host of other reasons why natural gas in cars is a good idea: It's about half as expensive as gasoline and 30% cleaner; the infrastructure to get it to service stations already exists; it's relatively cheap to convert existing cars ($500 to $2,000 per car, he said); and natural gas can be carbon neutral, if it's made from plants, a process he said requires no new technology.
"It's maybe the best alternative fuel we have, and the quickest way to get off foreign imports," he said.
As for Gore's call, there aren't any specific measures to analyze. But if Pickens' timetable is aggressive, Gore's is like Pickens' gone wild.
"It's completely impractical to imagine that we could totally wean ourselves off fossil fuels," said Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry's trade association.
Impractical, maybe. But using more renewables is certainly worth looking into. The EIA estimates that by 2015, wind energy will cost 7 cents per kilowatt-hour to produce, just a half-cent more than coal or natural gas.
The EIA says if strict greenhouse gas restrictions become law, renewables might go from 3% percent of the nation's electricity mix to around 25%. Coal, meanwhile, would likely go from more than half to less than a quarter. The EIA said that under the worst-case scenario in bringing about this shift, electricity prices may double.
Given the dangers global warming may pose - U.N. scientists predict severe droughts and floods unless greenhouse gasses are drastically reduced - more-expensive electricity may be a cost Americans are willing to bear.
Article Link
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
